News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 799     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.5K     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rob Ford frustrated as stores continue charging 5¢ fee after bag tax abolished

Toronto scrapped its 5¢ plastic bag fee effective July 1, but many large retailers in Toronto are continuing to charge for plastic bags.

“The impetus to do it is to help divert plastic bags from landfill,” said Tammy Smitham, spokeswoman for Shoppers Drug Mart. “Several years ago, this was the main concern of customers. It was the main concern in municipalities. So, that’s why we are continuing to proceed with it.”

Mayor Rob Ford, who supported eliminating the bag fee, is bitter that retailers continue to ding shoppers a nickel a bag.

Canadian Tire and Sears Canada have chosen to axe the fee, as has Summerhill Market, a mid-town upscale grocery store. Summerhill’s store manager Christy McMullen said “people should be able to donate to a charity of their choice.”

“It makes me sick that other stores are still charging it,” she added. “I think that it should be up to the consumer to choose if they want to come in and bring their own bags or not.”
Click to expand...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/11/rob-ford-frustrated-as-stores-continue-charging-5%C2%A2-fee-after-bag-tax-abolished/

Well no shit, Rob. Who could have seen this coming? Except everybody. Probably because it isn't a freaking tax.
 
Not that I ever reflexively side with the Rob Ford, but isn't part of the problem that this is an involuntary yet supposedly feel-good measure which is, nonetheless, not directly tied to funding environmental concerns? As I understand it, there's no regulatory mechanism to ensure that each five cent collection goes toward waste reduction or recycling. Instead, we get stores that say the money goes toward a variety of charities chosen by each particular store chain. Smaller independent stores can do what they want with the money. It's not a direct and accountable revenue stream. It's just a wee bit loosey-goosey and it's open to abuses.

In any case, soon it'll all be moot. Banning the plastic bag altogether can hardly be what Ford envisioned. Amazing how many things have backfired on him, after that initial heady rush of power and apparent steamrolling invulnerability.
 
Lenser said:
Not that I ever reflexively side with the Rob Ford, but isn't part of the problem that this is an involuntary yet supposedly feel-good measure which is, nonetheless, not directly tied to funding environmental concerns? As I understand it, there's no regulatory mechanism to ensure that each five cent collection goes toward waste reduction or recycling. Instead, we get stores that say the money goes toward a variety of charities chosen by each particular store chain. Smaller independent stores can do what they want with the money. It's not a direct and accountable revenue stream. It's just a wee bit loosey-goosey and it's open to abuses.

In any case, soon it'll all be moot. Banning the plastic bag altogether can hardly be what Ford envisioned. Amazing how many things have backfired on him, after that initial heady rush of power and apparent steamrolling invulnerability.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter where the money goes. Even if not even a cent goes to environmental programs, it still reduces the number of bags that people use. That's the real usefulness of the fee.
 
That is indeed useful but it would be nice to tie it directly to a positive environmental cause. Otherwise it's just sloppy and the general lack of accountability irks me.... and, i suspect, a good many other taxpayers.

It matters where the money goes. It always matters. Especially when we're talking about the gubmint.
 
More importantly is the fact that the bag fee changed habits - asking for disposable bags is no longer a reflex for a good chunk of the population. This behaviourial change is significant in that it probably has long term effect.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Agreed. You still have people ignoring that but they are now in the minority. Now if we could only get the smokers to stop flicking their butts into the street.
 
The gum-chewing reminds me of Singapore - don't they have some kind of draconian laws regarding that? As for pe-ers, good luck with that. When the clubs let out each night, stuff happens. And cars? Well, I'm OK with cars in principle. In the city, it's all about sharing space.
 
Got it, you're ok with everything, except the bag tax, which isn't a tax, and smokers.
Car pollution is perfume to you ;)
 
insertrealname said:
Arrgh, what's the hurry to save just a couple of seconds of time? Why can't drivers simply follow the rule and avoid any possibility of something going wrong: when the streetcar in front of them begins to slow down and stops for passengers, under no circumstances should cars in the right-hand lane attempt to get ahead of the streetcar! Stop your car well behind the rear-most doors! The number of times I've seen really dangerous acceleration of cars attempting to get past the streetcar just when it is slowing down or has just come to a halt at the stop, not to mention the times when streetcar, descending from the rear doors, I've had to thread my way in front or behind a car practically blocking them!

Please, is it such an insult to car-driving pride to take these precautions?

With the greatest respect, I think it's just good city driving habits...
Click to expand...

I certainly did not advocate gunning it around a slowing streetcar as you suggest. Read what I said again. Stop your car behind the streetcar (even if the rear doors are closed), look, then slowly and safely move forward when the doors are closed.

It would simply be non-functional to be stuck behind a streetcar the entire length of your drive, and its 99% impossible to pass one if you start behind them (and rather dangerous as well - you would be accelerating very aggressively and would be fairly blind to what's in front of the streetcar while doing so)
 
Got it, you're ok with everything, except the bag tax, which isn't a tax, and smokers.
Car pollution is perfume to you

Oh, so you think all cars will always emit smoke, do you? Cool. And if the bag tax isn't a tax, why are you calling it a bag tax?
 
And if the bag tax isn't a tax, why are you calling it a bag tax?
Click to expand...

Playing the dummy? Why don't you sdcroll back and have a look at your own posts?

Oh, so you think all cars will always emit smoke, do you?
Click to expand...

Until the majority are electric or hydrogen powered, yes. Do you think burning fossil fuel doesn't produce smoke? Do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top